Patricia Schaefer, daughter-in-law of Jean Nieth, sought the help of What's Your Problem to resolve the question over the life insurance benefit. (Taylor Glascock, For the Chicago Tribune)

Jean Nieth worked 32 years at Wilson Sporting Goods, much of that time making golf clubs at the company's River Grove plant.

When she retired in 1973 at age 59, she was given a pension and health insurance benefits.

It wasn't until more than three decades later that she was told she also had a company-paid life insurance policy.

By then, Wilson had been bought and later resold by PepsiCo. In 2004, PepsiCo sent Nieth a letter saying it administered her "Retiree Basic Life Insurance" benefit, which entitled her loved ones to $5,000 when she died.

Nieth's daughter-in-law, Patricia Schaefer, said she called PepsiCo the following year and a company representative confirmed the life insurance benefit.

But in January 2007, PepsiCo sent Nieth another letter saying the first letter was incorrect — she was not eligible for the policy.

Last year, Nieth died at age 97.

Confused about whether the family was entitled to the $5,000 insurance payment, Schaefer began calling Wilson and PepsiCo. No one, she said, could tell her if the life insurance policy was valid.

After trying to get clarification for almost a year, Schaefer finally received a letter from PepsiCo in April, which was simply a copy of the letter from 2007 saying Nieth was ineligible for the benefit.

Worried she was getting the runaround, Schaefer wrote to What's Your Problem? this month.

"If the insurance never existed, why did they ask her to update the beneficiary in 2004 and confirm it to me in 2005 over the telephone?" the Prospect Heights resident asked. "Something just doesn't seem right."

The Problem Solver called Molly Wallace, a spokeswoman for Wilson, who said her company did not provide a death benefit like the one PepsiCo wrote about in the 2004 letter to Nieth.

"It was their benefits communication and their mistake," Wallace said in an email. "Her issue has to be with PepsiCo."

The Problem Solver also called Aurora Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for PepsiCo. After some research, Gonzalez said Nieth was not eligible for the life insurance benefit.

"First, apologies to the Nieth family for the challenges in getting their benefits question answered," Gonzalez said in an email. "Based on our review, Jean Nieth was not eligible for life insurance benefits under PepsiCo's plans because she retired at age 59. Hourly employees from the Wilson division were only eligible for life insurance if they retired at age 65 or later."

Gonzalez said the 2004 letter was sent in error, and the follow-up letter that was sent in 2007 was correct.

"We are sorry for the confusion but hope this answers the Nieth family's question," Gonzalez wrote.

Schaefer said she really can't argue with PepsiCo if it says her mother-in-law was ineligible.

"If that's the case, though, why didn't they tell me this right up front when I called?" she said. "They could have sent me (that explanation) back in May (2012), and I would have stopped calling."

Schaefer said she believes her mother-in-law earned the $5,000 benefit.

"It was hard work, I'll tell you," she said. "Thirty-two years of service, but it wasn't enough. It doesn't seem fair, but if that's the rule, that's the rule."